In the case of Germany, or what used to be known as Prussia, we can use four of their leaders as examples of successfulness/failure in terms of leadership.  Firstly, there was Frederick the Great of Prussia. Frederick the Great was one of the first enlightened despots. What made him so successful was that he viewed himself as merely a servant of the state, but not as a god. This led him to be more equal to the public, for he felt it was not right to pretend he was a god. Another way that he was successful was through the abolition of serfdom and reformation of religion in his empire. Frederick was very far ahead of his time, and we have him to thank for some of the things going on in Germany today. Similar to Frederick was Wilhelm the first of Germany. Wilhelm himself wasn’t a great leader, but he did know to let Otto Von Bismarck run the empire. Bismarck was Wilhelm’s prime minister, and he practiced the use of Realpolitik. Realpolitik is the belief the end result justifies the means. For example, we all know what happens in the process of making sausages, but we overlook it due to the end result (the actual sausage.). This policy was very successful in terms of what it allowed Germany to gain. Under Wilhelm I/Bismarck, Germany was able to successfully sneak around and become a very powerful nation.

In contrast with Wilhelm the First, there is Wilhelm the Second. Wilhelm II also had Bismarck as a prime minister, the difference being that Wilhelm II did not like what Bismarck was doing. Wilhelm II was the ruler of Germany during World War One. What Wilhelm did that really led to a decline of Germany, eventually ending in its loss of WWI, was firing Bismarck. Why fire what was already successful? Wilhelm II was obviously power-hungry, and felt the regime imposed by the use of Bismarck as a “primary ruler” did not fit into his long-term goals of power. If Bismarck hadn’t been fired by Wilhelm the second, Germany might’ve won WWI and the world would be a very different place.

Lastly for Germany we must go to Adolf Hitler. Hitler was the leader of Germany during The Great Depression and up until his suicide during World War II. Hitler can be seen as both a success and as a failure for multiple reasons.  One reason that Hitler can be considered a success is due to the fact that he managed to gain a lot of power for Germany in a rather short time. The way Hitler was able to do this was due to the organized efforts of the Einsatzgruppen. The Einsatzgruppen were Hitler’s “special forces.” Hitler used the Special Forces to kill and harm massive amounts of people who went against Hitler’s wishes. This was especially helpful to Hitler because it eliminated the majority of his opposition. Another way that Hitler was able to be successful was through the use of dehumanization policies. Hitler felt that anyone who did not belong to the Aryan race (or someone considered by Hitler to be just as good as Aryans) did not belong in society. Hitler successfully used propaganda to make the Jews appear to be vermin. This helped the Aryan race see that it was “necessary” to kill the Jews.

Hitler can also be seen as a failure for Germany in multiple ways. One such way is that Hitler led a genocide. Genocide will always be something bad, and no matter who is doing it, that person can be considered a failure. Another way that Hitler can be seen as a failure is that he didn’t succeed in killing off all of the Jews in Europe. Hitler was unable to kill all the Jews because there wasn’t really anyone else in all of Germany who fully supported him. This is counterproductive in terms of meeting a specific goal because if you are the only one working towards a specific goal, then it is going to take a while. One last way Hitler can be considered a failure is that he considered every non-Aryan to be less than nothing, which showed that Hitler did not have a very open mind. Having an open mind is a positive characteristic of being a successful leader. For example, at the battle of Stalingrad, Hitler was convinced that it would be a short easy fight, for he thought that Slavs were dumb. This was entirely wrong. Hitler was very narrow-minded, which ultimately led to his downfall.

            Germany has had many leaders, some of which were successful and some of which were failures. Germany began with a successful start with Frederick and Wilhelm I, but as its history went on, Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler led to its demise by being huge failures.

            Another country that is necessary to mention when talking about leaders is the Soviet Union. The very first leader of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, although harsh, was a very successful leader. What Josef Stalin did that can be considered a success is the creating of the world’s first Communist country. Through the use of fear, Stalin was able to not only create the world’s first Communist country, but was also able to keep it running and successful for the rest of his life. Stalin can also be viewed as a failure to society. The way that Stalin can be viewed as a failure is that he had to use immense amounts of fear, which led to an almost-universal hatred of him. Were there some other way to impose Communism, Stalin would’ve been able to maintain a more successful empire that may have eventually ruled the entire world had he not used the element of fear in such a great amount/in such great amounts. The second Soviet leader to consider is Nikita Khrushchev. Khrushchev was a very different ruler than Josef Stalin. Stalin was a more secretive guy in terms of foreign relations. Khrushchev was very open, and very risky. What Khrushchev did that can be considered a failure was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev almost successfully armed Cuba against the U.S. which could have led to a U.S.S.R. victory in the Cold War. Khrushchev was too open in his ways, which is what eventually led to this end result of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

After Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev is another leader to be considered. Brezhnev was another very different kind of leader. Brezhnev can be considered an all-around failure due to many reasons. One reason that Brezhnev was a failure was that he allowed himself to be seen in public wearing a swim suit and bathing cap. I feel like this detracted from his overall goals. A main reason that Brezhnev was such a failure was that he didn’t do much of anything. He was still worried about all the mishaps caused by Nikita Khrushchev, so he decided to be very obstinate and unchanging with the Soviet Union. The one thing that Brezhnev did, which at the time could be considered successful, was the Brezhnev Doctrine. This will eventually turned out to be a failure, because it was the one thing truly holding together the U.S.S.R., and when Gorbachev abolished it, it led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The final leader that needs to be talked about in regards to the Soviet Union is Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was the last leader of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev can be considered a failure in the eyes of other Communist leaders. What made him a failure was that he brought about the fall of the U.S.S.R., and of the Soviet Union. One way that he did this was by being to “open and lenient” in policies in comparison to Stalin, who was the most vicious with his policies. This made Gorbachev look weak, as if he didn’t care about the communist state anymore. Another thing that made him look weak and that brought about the deterioration of the Soviet Union was through the abolishment of the Brezhnev Doctrine. When Gorbachev abolished the Brezhnev Doctrine, he did so because he no longer had the military capability, or money to continue to impose it. What this did was allow countries that belonged to the U.S.S.R. to break off their ties. The countries that this most directly affected were the ones gained by the Soviet Union in the Warsaw Pact. Despite these failures, Gorbachev can also be viewed as a success. We, the United States, can view Gorbachev as a success in the way that he brought about an end to the largest force of Communism in the entire world. This greatly helped in the attempt to expel all Communism from the world.

            In the case of Russia, and then the Soviet Union, We consider the countries’ life to be a great long path. We had rulers of all kinds, but in the end Gorbachev, their last ruler, successfully brought about the destruction of the Soviet Union. The path that was taken by this empire/country was very long and labored. From Stalin to Gorbachev, this Empire/country went through a lot of successes and failures.

            The last country worth mentioning is France. The first leader that begins to become relevant for France’s success (and later failure) story is Louis XIV. Louis XIV, also known as The Sun King, was compared to a god. This allowed him to have a kind of “Absolute rule,” if you will. Louis XIV was a success in many ways. His first way that he was successful was shown by his ability to rule. He lived in a time when the only way to get a message to another place in a country was to take it there yourself. This made it increasingly difficult to have absolute rule over your country. This did not stop Louis XIV though. One other way that he can be considered a success is that he was able to do so many things behind his countries back, simply by distracting them with rich lavish things (like Versailles). This made it easier for him to do so many things. However, this also made him out to be a failure. The way that this made him out to be a failure was that this made the France fall into massive debts, just to pay for Versailles. One other way that we can consider Louis XIV to be a failure is because of the aforementioned massive debts. Had Louis XIV not incurred massive debts, then the French revolution might not have happened. Louis XIV although a great leader, eventually brought about the French Revolution, so he is to blame for so many mishaps of the world.

The next leader is really a group of leaders: Maximillien Robespierre, Georges Danton, and Jean-Paul Marat. These three, although never said to be leaders of France, were because they ruled France. Robespierre controlled the political aspect of the government, helping with laws, and invoking fear upon everyone just to maintain some form of order. Danton controlled the military for France. Although this may not seem that important it is in fact the most important. Without the help of Danton and the French army, Robespierre would not have been able to hold power for very long. Marat was basically the rabble-rouser for the general public. He was in charge of a newspaper, which supported Robespierre. What this did was give Robespierre a good appearance in the eyes of the public. This government was working well until Robespierre decided he wanted more power. At the time France could be considered to be a secular Empire, due to the fact the Robespierre had abolished the church and religion in France. The problem with this was that later on, towards the end of Robespierre’s reign, He decided that he wanted to be considered a “god.” What was wrong with this was that he had publicly announced that he was against religion, but suddenly now he wasn’t? The public revolted, and ceased him to publicly execute him with his own weapon, the guillotine.

After Robespierre’s death, Napoleon Bonaparte took over. Napoleon is greatly considered to be the greatest leader almost any country has seen. What Napoleon did that can be considered a success was almost completely taking over the continent of Europe. At this time this was a very hard goal to accomplish. What got in his way was the navy of Great Britain. This is considered to be Napoleon’s greatest failure. Napoleon was unable to capture all of Europe, and eventually reach his final goals of ruling the entire world, due to the simple fact that he could not defeat the British navy.         

Many of France’s leaders were successful, but many were also failures. What makes France so different from every other place is that France has had several revolutions. You know it’s bad when you have to specify which revolution it was. France was taken on a long dark road, the road of life. From Versailles to Napoleon, France is the way it is today due to everything in between.

            Success and failure are defined in many different ways, but as you can see they all of the same basic principles. From the successes of leaders who were lying and mistreating people, to the successes of leaders who were actually “good” leaders, they are all similar, and can all be justified in the same ways. Even with the failures, some were good, some were bad. We have had many different failure stories throughout history, but most failures can be associated with the “bad” leaders. In history books it is often hard to find failures of the “good” leaders, but they do exist.

Power and money corrupts the character. This seems to be an ancient human experience that has not changed today. Only the methods have altered. Exercise of power always had big drawbacks. Today power is turned into an instrument that has no scruples and its use is reflected in many areas.

In politics, the power behavior very strongly oriented towards the objective of re-election. This means that the real interests and the interests of the people are increasingly in the background. Also anzuweifeln in many cases the competence and responsibility of politicians. Strengthened the whole will, however, often by the Wählververhalten. a politician pulls once on the “right thing” to do, he is immediately punished when his decisions cause “pain”. Unfortunately, it’s not without pain. To this extent, democracy only works if people more courage – “across party lines” – to prove, as we learn more and, fortunately, this and that place. It is hoped that this form of behavior continued attacks foot.

As the dramatic power of behavior must be considered in the economic centers. This is an attempt to cut and thrust through through growth and acquisitions as possible to achieve “independent variables”. If this time is reached, the game balls to inform addicts. Our leaders in politics or in the control centers of the antitrust authorities have apparently failed to look or do not even doing anything. The injected contrast, lobbyists are working satisfactorily.

Meanwhile, many speculators make money with your greed at various levels, the critical power potential dar. Will this problem does not “get a grip on the world” will end the crisis ausglösten By this means again no longer a “black eye”. Everyone experiences now, as this clientele benefits from the ausglösten crises of them the most. As long as the pain caused to the other point here, let’s say from the taxpayer to be collected, will not only change that took place in this way, but the reward will lead to a further increase.

The biggest abuse of power was and is further held in dictatorships. The 1955 uprising in the former GDR, the Hungarian Auftand 1958, the Prague Spring Lung 1968, Solidarity in Poland in 1980 were “plants” that have led people to freedom. Gorbachev in his era from 1985 to 1991 with glasnost (openness) and the related Peristroika (conversion) triggered something he has not presented and created a new world order. Good for the people. What actions the leaders of their power have been prepared, is more and more forgotten. Who, for example, now lets talk about witnesses in the Stasi Museum (Hohenschönhausen, Bautzen, etc.) the atrocities is shaken home. Just because people have said their opinion, they were imprisoned. All the perversion of this action is clear when one learns that this prison inmates on a pretext, for example, waiting to be tried for hours, were considered backward by X-rays. In general, this group of people for a lot of money was sold to the West. The result did not miss its effect. Since there is nothing to gloss over. We can be happy that it’s over.

Hitler and Stalin were the most callous person who were responsible for the greatest suffering in the Menscheitsgeschichte. Ideology coupled with power have, for humanity’s greatest freinds. Mankind must use these instruments of power to banish forever.

The people have woken up and understood in connection with today’s technical means (Internet, media) in conjunction with improved educational opportunities for her, hope. The latest proof is the part already successful popular uprisings in the Arab countries. It is hoped that any false paths may be taken all leads to a good end, and so one day, the last despot, the craft is placed.

You can see only too well that better education of people can not only be the basis for economic success but also for the promotion of democracy thought.

What remains are words of hope and fear. We must all remain vigilant and to make contributions to a triumph of hope.

“This event will celebrate what Gorbachev achieved by combining the major artists ofthe East and West during the night of celebration,“said General Leonid Shlachoverproducer before the party. Then some even suspected that Milla Jovovich will take careof and links to other, more intimate level. The whole party stood two to three million pounds and leaves the decision not to allow anyone - their price has ranged from 195to 100 000 pounds.

In addition to the beautiful actress came legendary Nobel laureate Gorbachev toLondon to congratulate eighty many other personalities from the world ofshowbusiness. Among well-wishers would you find as Arnold Schwarzenegger andactor Kevin Spacey. Those, however, did not show anything extra!

Workers engaged in harvesting the Lenin collective farm in Zhazhkovo district in the current Ukraine. The year is 1933. Collectivization led to a dramatic decline in production and subsequent famine that killed millions of people.

Science Photo Library

“It is sacred to plow the earth,” wrote Lev Tolstoy in his old age. But here in Russia there was a slavery.

In the short story “The singers’ Anton Chekhov described the peasants as serfs singing about their grief. In Ivan Turgenev, “A hunter’s diary” sings the weary farmers around the tallow candle with vodka bottle as the tears roll from the readers.

But then in March 1861 abolished reformer tsar Alexander II serfdom.

The farmers ceased to be property of the nobility, young lovers could no longer be sold separately to St. Petersburg and the Urals because the peasant girl would not sleep with the nobleman.

Lincoln and Alexander

In the west, Russian leaders have not had a good reputation for the solutions they chose to social problems.

But Alexander II of Russia held slavery peacefully three years before the Battle of Gettysburg – the crescendo of the American Civil War. Slavery was a bone of contention, and it is not without reason that Abraham Lincoln’s statue in the vestibule jewelry Revolution Museum in Havana.

There was no revolution against Alexander II. On the contrary, he was assassinated by an anarchist in 1881.

On the scene in St. Petersburg was “the Church in pool of blood” listed 100 meters west of Europe’s longest street: Nevsky Prospekt.

Murder motive of the anarchist was a crisis maximization. Should the monarchy overthrown, was a liberal Tsar worst omvelterne, nihilists and anarchists could imagine.

Farmers and books

But if the Russian peasants had their freedom 150 years ago, they were not property of the earth. To the blood price they had to acquire their land spots from the nobility. And gjeldsåket burdened the Russian peasants until the Revolution of 1917.

Lenin’s slogan of land to farmers secured tab escape from the front during the First World War and thus came peasant and worker state.

How important is this backdrop of peasant history of Russian mentality?

For almost 30 years ago I accompanied konservatorieprofessor Vitaly Katajev the Bergen International Festival. There he was greeted as the first conductor who acted Edvard Grieg’s Forbidden Symphony.

Katajev had never been outside the Soviet Union, and when we came back to Moscow, I asked what had made the biggest impression in the West – see Norway.

- Farm to your mother’s cousin John Haaland in Alversund north of Bergen, said my Russian friend.

When I asked the conductor Grieg why exactly it, he replied:

- Did you not know that the farmer had a wall full of books he had read?

John was a member of the old Book Club, and just the thought of farmers who read the books was almost inconceivable for a Russian intellectual, even in the late Soviet era.

Revolutionary or reformist

In all the years I have asked the question about what makes Norwegians and Russians in mentality. As I have always been based in the year 1861. That year ended slavery for Russian farmers while their Norwegian stavnsfeller had a majority in Parliament, if not power in the Norwegian society.

Made a historic kvantespang until 1917, is the Russian proletarian revolutionary and King murderer, while the Norwegian workers are reformist, social democrat and in time also monarchist.

The difference in the development of mentality, I think has to do with the following: Where the Norwegian working class son of a fribåren Left-farmer, was the Russian proletarian son of a serf whipped.

“Scissor principle”

1920 was a better time for Russian farmers, until November 1929. When Joseph Stalin began full collectivization.

It broke the backs of the Russian peasantry, which is still crippled.

The idea was to pump financial resources over from agriculture to industry by under-price food and industrial goods pricing.

Scissor principle stated in the Soviet economy. It was also called “primitive socialist accumulation” of Stalin’s worker Ordzhonikidze.

And it was primitive.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s grandfather was sentenced to 12 years hard labor in the Ural Mountains, because he had a cow over the norm and was defined as a farmer or “kulak.”

- So I grew up in the house of an enemy of the people, but it gave me the right to condemn my own grandfather? asked the heads of state and party chief Mikhail Gorbachev at a meeting of the Society editor in Moscow in December 1990.

Large farmers and other farmers

In 1975, Gorbachev was a young party boss in Stavropol in northern Caucasus, and there sent my supervisor Dr. Viktor Danilov me to study agricultural statistics.

Gorbachev thought it was strange that a man as far north as from Norway arrived in the North Caucasus to study the land productivity.

Stalin-era atrocities against Russian farmers, with a famine in 1933-34 that claimed at least 5 million lives, still remembered.

Recently I talked with a younger guy who is deputy information minister of the autonomous republic of Tartarstan.

Over a glass of vodka, we came in on what I have studied rigorously in my life, Russian agrarian history.When told the minister that his grandfather had 30 years in Siberia as he was known farmer.

First, in 1961, 100 years after serfdom was abolished, did Soviet peasants domestic passport and could travel freely around the vast Soviet state which alone accounted for 1 / 6 of Earth’s land surface.

Collective farms lamentably heritage

When you break the backs of an entire peasant class, long-term effects are colossal.

Furthermore, in the Soviet period remained only 5-6 percent of cultivated land in private hands. Everything else was subject to state use called “kolkhoz” or collective farms.

“Kolkhoz” an invective today in Russian.

For in 1982, 32 percent of meat and milk produced on the paltry, private garden spots as constituted 6.5 percent of the cultivated field, 42 percent of fruits and vegetables were also grown on these Teigene while 60 percent of the Soviet potato production did it.

Today, complaints that are free farmers that they can have the accounting and auditing against up to 15 government organizations.

That makes them not much time for spring work.

The local TV station of the Moscow region reported 12March that the per hectare in 1000 is five palates more tractors in the U.S. than in Russia.

We might add that one thing is now the tractors, but you should have at least three applications for traction. To plow, harrow and møkkasprederen Russian farmers will pay dearly.

Thus, for example pork in Russia three times more expensive one pork from the United States and Poland – swine expensive in other words.

The Russian agriculture minister had to admit that while the Russian farmers can compete on quality, they can not on price. Mortgages for agricultural purposes still exists not, although there has been a law on private ownership of land.

Evidence of the professor

So it’s been bad to this day the Russian peasant, and many of them who studied crank their fate.

My supervisor Viktor Danilov who was in disgrace because he was the foremost historian of those who studied the collectivization, was the first relief when Gorbachev took over in the Kremlin in 1985.

10 years before I got a scholarship at British institutions because of Danilov.

For 25 years the British had in vain tried to invite him to lecture at them. As his student, they took me as proof that Danilov really existed and was alive.

That life ended a collectivized, Russian peasant worthy.Professor Danilov-old man who was beaten to death in the stairwell of his housing block with a brick by a drunk who robbed him.

“Moscow is a city that’s easy to be killed, but difficult to get a decent funeral,” wrote a nationally renowned poet and singer Alekandr Galich in his time.

The Russian peasantry was just a mass grave. “Dead Souls”, Nikolai Gogol called them – all long before the serfdom abolition 150 years ago.

So true, so true …

Gorbachev’s policies included Perestroika, meaning ‘economic restructuring’ and Glasnost, meaning ‘openness’, both with the West and within the Soviet Union. These policies brought a lot of change to the Soviet Union, bringing freedom and change to economic policies. They also led to the estrangement of Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union, the dismissal of Gorbachev as president and eventually to the breakup of the Soviet Union itself.

 With perestroika, Gorbachev aimed to change the USSR’s economic policies by lessening state control, introducing more competition for businesses and thus increasing incentive for workers. He wanted to break down the state monopolies of industry, and to do this he introduced a law on enterprise in 1988 which allowed companies to set prices and wages. This would introduce competition and provide incentive. In addition, Gorbachev allowed workers to set up co-operatives.

Glasnost, Gorbachev’s other policy, allowed him to change the way the Soviet Union was run by promoting openness within the USSR. Glasnost led to the censorship of the press being relaxed. Western ideas and music began to flood into the Soviet Union, including the first McDonalds in Moscow. The Russian Orthodox Church enjoyed religious freedom for the first time since the revolution. The powers of the KGB were restricted, and it was eventually abolished, it’s records made public. Free elections were held in 1990, and Gorbachev himself was often seen in the streets of Moscow, meeting Soviet citizens and talking about the changes.

However, Glasnost also led to many serious negative changes in the Soviet Union. The freedom it had allowed only encouraged people to ask for more. As Gorbachev walked around the streets of Moscow he received abuse, criticism and further demands. Moreover, Glasnost revealed that only strict discipline from Moscow had kept the Soviet Union together, when all the different cultures living in the USSR only wanted an end to domination by Russians.

As a result of this, the countries of Eastern Europe threw off communism in 1989 because they wanted to run their own affairs for the first time in 40 years. Soviet citizens in the republics then wanted to do the same, and so in 1989, Gorbachev was compelled to withdraw Soviet troops from the Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and allow them to become independent, as not doing so would have resulted in money being spent and possibly bloodshed.

Gorbachev’s policies did not help the Soviet Union but speeded up its demise. With Glasnost, he had hoped to gain financial support from the West, which they did not offer. In fact, the West wanted to take advantage of Gorbachev’s difficulties to push him further, and end the Warsaw pact, which they succeeded in doing with the breakaway of Eastern Europe from the USSR.

This, combined with increasing criticism of Gorbachev, concerned the Communist party, and in 1991 he was arrested by the party. This led to a final change: Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin, the Chairman of the Russian Federation saved Gorbachev along with the people of Moscow. Yeltsin then made it clear that he had brought about Gorbachev’s release, signifying that the real power did not lie with Gorbachev but with Yeltsin.

Thus, Gorbachev had brought change to the Soviet Union with his policies, which then led to his arrest and the subsequent takeover of Yeltsin. The criticism caused by Gorbachev’s policies also led to Eastern Europe freeing itself from communism, and then the breakup of the USSR:  by the Olympic games of 1992, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and in its place was a team representing the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Once Brezhnev had become the most powerful politician in the Soviet Union then Chernenko soon gained promotion into the Politburo. Many Western experts and Soviet observers assumed that he would become the General Secretary after Brezhnev died.

However in 1982 it was Yuri Andropov that was appointed as General Secretary as he was regarded as been a more dynamic candidate for that position. Chernenko did get the top job when Andropov expired in 1984.

However by that stage he was seriously ill himself. His tenure as Soviet General Secretary was too brief for him to achieve anything apart from delaying Gorbachev rise to holding office in the Kremlin.

To a very large degree Chernenko was a prime example of why the USSR was in desperate need of reform to prolong its existence.

Bibliography

Crystal D (1998) The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia

Lenman B (2004) The Chambers Dictionary of World History

Through his years of internment Sakharov became a symbol of the Soviet dissidents and was recognized as a hero to many in the west. Gorbachev had pledged to ease some of the Soviet political restrictions recognized that in releasing Sakharov and his wife his programme of ‘Glasnost’ or political openness would become much more legitimized. Sakharov was happy with these new attempts to ease the harshness of the communist rule inside the Soviet Union and he was even permitted to leave his homeland and travel to the United States to ask the American people for their assistance to Russia during this period of political reform.

Gorbachev was to find however that Sakharov was not a puppet to be used by this new styled regime. The former political prisoner was giving a speech as a member of the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989 where he continued to support the reforms of Gorbachev, however during the speech he harshly criticized the slow pace of the changes.

During a speech in December of 1989, Sakharov demanded a new multiparty political system for the Russian people. He was quickly cut off by Gorbachev, and his speech was over. Later that same day it was announced that Sakharov had died of a heart attack.

Image via Wikipedia

Twenty plus years ago, President Ronald Reagan bravely and brazenly called upon Soviet Premier Gorbachev to tear down the infamous Berlin Wall. The wall created a barrier from freedom the right to capitalism and prosperity for hundreds of Germans. The call to Gorbachev was heard loudly and clearly not only by Germans but also by millions of people under the Soviet empire. Eventually Gorbachev knew he could no longer dictate the terms of people’s lives. The wall fell and freedom spread all across Europe and the former Iron Curtain.

Today, the iron curtain seems to have been rebuilt, this time it is we Americans who are separated from the very leader we are to pay allegiance to. The voters have in massive numbers thrown out the congressional leaders who have dutifully followed Obama’s agenda. As such they have told the President “no mas” The results of the election and Obama’s subsequent discussions plus his trips abroad at taxpayers expense (another is schedule this weekend) clearly indicate that the President has a veil of deafness, stubbornness, and disregard of the people’s voices. He has a determination to play the pure idealogue that will ultimately lead him to the path of one term Presidents. “Barack Obama, meet Jimmy Carter”.

In the mean time, two more years exist of this man who has built a wall of defiance, who is keeping the American people away from their hopes and dreams for a return to prosperity, and a return to American exceptionalism. He is barring us from a return to faith in God that has been ravished by the politically correct crap that we must live with today. The President must hear our voices loud and clear, but to do so, the iron curtain must crumble again. “Mr Obama, tear down this wall”

Assimilate Barak Obama in the U.S., such as where you ran the government of Mikhail Gorbachev in the Socialist Empire of the Soviet Union and allied countries of Eastern Europe, based on doctrines contrary to the U.S.

He seemed uncertain political transformation of the socialist Soviet Union, especially the rivalry that faced the United States and Russia, perpetuated by threats and mutual hostility, considered in the opinion, as a “cold war”.

When least expected, Gorbachev, to use their powers and duties of government, imposed perestroika, which is defined as transformation, revolution or change. Began rethinking international relations. Waned he forced and radical sectarianism that characterized the socialist and ordered to remove the embalmed or mummified corpse of Lenin, forerunner and hero of socialism with Karl Marx and Stalin, and president of the Soviet Union, which was exhibited at the seat of government , immortalizing the socialist dictatorship.

Liberated countries tied to the unit and the Socialist Republics, subject to the guarantees and orders issued by the Russian government, which centralized the system of government in the Eurasian country.

Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, eradicated the territorial separatism, symbolized in the famous “Berlin Wall”, which divided Germany into East and West, induced hatred and discrimination, even contrary, racial feelings preached and practiced by the Germans. Refund holy book “Capital” of Karl Marx.

At the age of Gorbachev’s perestroika, cut off the stream of economic patronage and political organizations in some states, countries, not excluding terrorism running, resulting in the dismantling of socialist politics in the world, as a result of perestroika.

Despite the trauma that generates all change, especially in the unexpected sight, Gorbachev, the Russian president, looking cool, like Barak Obama, had the boldness, dignity and fundamentals; to justify the transformation of state and patience to care for and respect the differences and disagreements of those affected. Many confused with the changes that were imposed.

Finally, perestroika Russia, changed his style in the political system and government. Restructured the economic modules. Openings provided cultural, commercial and service with countries in Western Europe, Asia and in particular the U.S., his eternal enemy. The States of the Soviet Union, divided and tied the socialist regime, today enjoy freedom, independence and political autonomy. The socialist countries freed thawed territorial limitations and international relations, which have helped to promote domestic development.

Unlike the Russian President Gorbachev, the U.S. president, Barak Obama, not replace, nor transform capitalist culture. What is not neglected, is to control financial transactions and unfair discrimination that now have to “check” the responsibility of those who endorsed, permitted and tolerated, the illicit dealings and traffic circles of the States’ financial markets.

Those who underestimate or doubt the government executions of Barak Obama, you better collect your opinions and instead, become resigned to accept it with respect and grace. Without any limits on the freedom to disagree and opportunities to express themselves.

t is necessary that Republicans and many conservative Democrats, before spilling over with pride, will contribute with evil intentions, motivated by the actions of American perestroika, set out and advised by the new President of the USA Barak Obama, rather they calm down and contribute to the changes or adjustments required to be registered and Americans in the structural changes in fair democratic participation.

Thanks to the effects of perestroika Soviet Union managed to create the. With American perestroika, international peace must be consolidated. The funds and budgetary expenditures to deal with the war or national defense is intended to restore human degradation, restore and protect the environment.

The war today is nothing more than a lucrative implemented, promoted, encouraged and supported by the criminals, who seek illegal interests at the expense of human destruction, sheltering and hiding behind the economic, political and government.

President Barak Obama and his special team of collaborators, have the opportunity and the historic commitment made unforgettable record of good intentions, to lessen anti-American sentiment and reconcile circulating around the world led by hatred of the capitalist empire, which calls into safety hazard and limits of American citizens abroad, for military action and hostile governments have exerted some U.S. or other countries.

President Barak Obama, is instituted humanitarian faith and hope. The world’s poor, discriminated and submerged divine dependence and corruption, the ovation with cheers and expressions. Native Americans and immigrants, are optimistic about improving their conditions, clinging to the good deeds that decree in his favor. It is to exalt the blacks, mestizos and youths, inspired and happy by media spaces, virtual and natural, that offers and facilitates President Barak Obama, to attend to and embodied in the cyber media to participate in democratic politics in favor of government plans and programs.

The inaugural address of President Obama, was punctual, reserving the discretion of executive trading strategy. The discomforts of adversaries emerge as bubble, refusing to accept, respect and accommodate, in the style of the ruler of the popular will. What it means security prevention against the danger that generates hatred.

The closure of the prison “Guantanamo,” a torture center. A prison that received qualified by the Bush administration, as terrorists, which treated inhumanely in violation of international humanitarian law and the rights to defense, we affirm the principle makes the life of the American perestroika, in the first government exercised by a black person in America.

Pastor Martin Luther King and former Democratic presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy finally rest in peace, to consolidate the dream and legacy, respect each racial and ethnic differences in American citizens. Living and sharing without discrimination and to govern without etnofóbicas differentiate color, once materialized recognition of civil and political rights, in favor of blacks residing in the U.S., achieved by the struggle for recovery, led by the cross Christian Martin Luther King, hosted in the government of Democratic presidents.

The loss of ones culture is an unfortunate result of past globalization. One such misfortune happened in the 1800s and 1900s when the Canadian government forced many Aboriginal children into residential schools. In these schools they were not allowed to speak their own language or take part in any games or traditions that they learned at home. This caused them to lose their language, their heritage, and many traditions that have been passed down for generations in their families. This also created low self-esteem and was the root of their loss of identity as the Europeans tried to ‘civilize’ them. However, as society moves forward problems like residential schools can be avoided and loss of culture will be on a far lesser scale.

In the future, as globalization becomes truly global, countries will no longer fight and there will be no more war. There is already evidence that this can happen. From the end of World War II there was a war called the Cold War, it was fought between the United States and the USSR. It had been a political war between Communism and Capitalism at the very basis of its foundations; it had also been a race to create the most powerful nuclear weapons, and to put a man on the moon, there had no actual fighting but both sides feared that it could break out at any moment. In the late 1980s early 1990s the war had been going on for nearly half a century when the leaders of the United States, Ronald Reagan, and Soviet Russia, Mikhail Gorbachev, decided that enough was enough. Reagan and Gorbachev decided to work together as all the tension and rivalry was useless, and together they took down the Berlin Wall. Uniting East Germany and West Germany that had been separated since the end of the Second World War. They also created the Russo-U.S. Space Station which was later renamed the International Space Station as a sign of peace for the world. If the Unites States and the U.S.S.R. could set aside their differences then the rest of the world can as well, it is only a matter of time.

Prejudice has been a problem for thousands of years albeit the most extreme example is the Holocaust. There were concentration camps where millions of Jewish people were emaciated and slaughtered for no other reason except their religion. Adolf Hitler was the man who ran Germany at the time and ordered such atrocities. Anyone who was not a ‘perfect German’ in his eyes was brought to the camps, Jews, Homosexuals, and people of African descent, made up the main body of people in these torture camps. When the world realized what was happening they stepped up and launched into World War II, saving countless people and ridding Germany of its corrupted and prejudiced leader. Globalization was, and is, the cure to this hate. As people become more and more aware of the different cultures around the world, whether by travel or mass media, they will come to not only tolerate, but also to accept each other.

Trade and open borders are other benefits to globalization. As countries work together more there will be less restrictions and tariffs on traded goods. There may even be a day where there is a global currency, evening out the world’s debt and inflation zones. People will be able to travel between countries with little hassle and no need to exchange money, as it will be accepted everywhere. There is one place like this in the world already, the European Union. It connects Spain, Germany, Italy, France, and a few other countries in Europe. They have one currency, the Euro, has a relatively free trade agreement with all participating countries, and very low restriction travel between nations. The countries are at peace and are an excellent example of what can be accomplished to the world.

Past legacies of globalization may not have the best record but the future still looks bright if we embrace it. Countries will be working together for freedom and shared prosperity for their people through free trade and open borders. Never again will we see the horrifying destructiveness of prejudice in scenes of the holocaust, and countries will work together for the unity of the world like the day the Berlin Wall came crashing down. There may be some loss of culture but not to the extent that residential schools had elicited from the Aboriginals. Overall the world will be a better place and it is up to the global community to embrace it. Globalization is happening, and the opportunity for global unity is at society’s doorstep.